WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday confirmed Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a key role to help President Donald Trump fulfill his pledge to roll back major environmental regulations, including those aimed at slowing climate change and encouraging use of electric vehicles.
The vote was 56-42 in Zeldin’s favor. Three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania — supported Zeldin, along with all 53 Republicans.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, is a longtime Trump ally and served on Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment. He voted against certifying Trump’s 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Zeldin, 44, said during his confirmation hearing that he has a moral responsibility to be a good steward of the environment and pledged to support career staff who have dedicated themselves to the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment.
Zeldin repeatedly declined to commit to specific policies, however, promising instead not to prejudge outcomes before arriving at EPA. When asked by Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska whether he would roll back programs that promote electric cars — a program Trump has repeatedly criticized — Zeldin stayed vague but acknowledged he has heard Republican complaints.
Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has vowed to overturn former President Joe Biden’s biggest climate accomplishments, including tailpipe regulations for vehicles and slashed pollution from power plants fired by coal and natural gas. Trump has already moved to oust career staff at EPA and other agencies, remove scientific advisers and close an office that helps minority communities that disproportionately struggle with polluted air and water.
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island called Zeldin the wrong man for the job.
“We need an EPA administrator who will take climate change seriously, treat the science honestly and stand up where necessary to the political pressure that will be coming from the White House, where we have a president who actually thinks (climate change) is a hoax, and from the huge fossil fuel forces that propelled him into office with enormous amounts of political money and who now think they own the place,” Whitehouse said in a Senate speech.
Trump is “under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry,” Whitehouse said, adding that the EPA administrator “has to be truthful and factual and support and defend our environment and our safety from climate change.”
He has nothing against Zeldin personally, Whitehouse added, “but the likelihood of him standing against that fossil fuel bulldozer that is coming at him is essentially zero. And in that context, this is very much the wrong guy.”
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Zeldin will return the EPA to its original mission of protecting America’s air, water and land — without “suffocating the economy.”
Barrasso called Zeldin “a lifelong public servant” and a seasoned lawyer with a sharp legal mind and over 20 years of military service.
Zeldin will continue Trump’s “mission to roll back punishing, political regulations” at the EPA, “cut red tape” and oversee “a new wave of creativity and innovation,” Barrasso said.
“For the last four years, the so-called experts at the Environmental Protection Agency went on a reckless regulatory rampage,” Barrasso said, referring to the Biden administration. “They saddled American families and businesses with higher costs and heavy-handed restrictions. They bowed to climate extremism and ignored common sense.”
Zeldin “will right the ship and restore balance at the EPA,” Barrasso said, citing likely actions to repeal Biden-era rules on tailpipe emissions and power plants, along with eliminating federal subsidies for electric vehicles.
The League of Conservation Voters, a national environmental advocacy group, has panned Zeldin’s lifetime environmental record, giving him a 14% score. Like all Republicans at the time, he voted against the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act aimed at boosting renewable energy and manufacturing and fighting climate change.
Zeldin supported a bill to reduce harmful forever chemicals, called PFAS, that would have required the EPA to set limits on substances in drinking water. He also was a leading proponent of the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act, which used oil and gas royalties to help the National Park Service tackle its massive maintenance backlog. He’s also supported local conservation efforts on Long Island.
Zeldin said at his Jan. 16 hearing that he wants to collaborate with the private sector “to promote common-sense, smart regulation that will allow American innovation to continue to lead the world.”
The EPA under his leadership “will prioritize compliance as much as possible,” Zeldin said. “I believe in the rule of law and I want to work with people to ensure they do their part to protect the environment.”
Today, the Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin’s confirmation comes amidst President Trump’s vow to roll back climate regulations and cut environmental protections.
Zeldin, a staunch advocate for deregulation and a critic of climate change science, is expected to lead the EPA in a new direction that aligns with the Trump administration’s pro-business agenda. His confirmation has sparked controversy among environmentalists and lawmakers who fear that his leadership could lead to further dismantling of crucial environmental protections.
President Trump has made it clear that he intends to prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns, and Zeldin’s appointment is seen as a step in that direction. With Zeldin at the helm, the EPA is likely to see a significant shift in its approach to climate change and other environmental issues.
As Zeldin takes the reins at the EPA, it remains to be seen how his leadership will impact the agency’s mission to protect the environment and public health. Environmental advocates and concerned citizens will be closely watching to see how Zeldin’s policies shape the future of environmental protection in the United States.
On Jan. 27, the Environmental Protection Agency quietly removed all information about climate change from its homepage and other prominent areas of its website, burying it deep in sections that are harder to find.
Environmental advocates condemned the deletions, part of sweeping efforts to revise federal websites to reflect President Donald Trump’s agenda, saying the information suppression comes at a time when climate upheaval is intensifying damage and harm.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website overhaul reprised a similar move by Trump’s first administration, which touched off a “Don’t Say Climate” movement among some Republican-led stategovernments. The new erasure came two days before the U.S. Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee to lead the agency: former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who has pledged to slash EPA funding, roll back environmental protections, and promote more fossil fuel production.
In a related push, Trump’s new transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, is aiming to eliminate fuel economy standards, one of President Joe Biden’s more ambitious environmental initiatives.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration made a controversial move by deleting mentions of climate change from its website. This decision has sparked outrage among environmental activists, scientists, and concerned citizens who believe that addressing climate change is crucial for protecting the planet.
By removing information about climate change from its website, the EPA is sending a dangerous message that they are not prioritizing the issue or taking it seriously. This move is seen as a step backward in the fight against climate change and could have far-reaching consequences for the environment and future generations.
It is important for the public to stay informed and engaged on climate change issues, despite attempts to downplay or erase the issue by government agencies. Taking action to address climate change is more important now than ever, and we must hold our leaders accountable for their decisions that impact the planet. Let’s continue to advocate for environmental protection and push for policies that prioritize sustainability and combat climate change.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has directed agency officials to review and remove content related to climate change from its public websites, according to internal emails obtained by ABC News.
The directive instructs web managers to identify, archive, or unpublish materials mentioning climate change by “no later than close of business this Friday,” according to the emails.
In an email sent Thursday, USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee detailed the process, requiring staff to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change” and track related content in an attached Excel spreadsheet for review.
“OC will review the submitted materials and make determinations on next steps,” Rhee wrote, referring to the department’s Office of Communications.
A separate email sent to website managers at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) emphasized the urgency of the request.
“USDA and ARS OC are requesting you comply with the instructions below from USDA’s Office of Communications,” the email read, instructing ARS staff to submit their content audit by 3 p.m. ET Friday to meet the department’s deadline.
USDA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
In this April 18, 2024, file photo, the sign marking the headquarters building for the US Department of Agriculture is shown in Washington, D.C.
J. David Ake/Getty Images, FILE
According to the spreadsheet provided to website managers and obtained by ABC News, content is being categorized into three levels of urgency. Pages dedicated entirely to climate change are marked as “Tier 1,” while those where a significant portion of the content relates to climate change are labeled “Tier 2.”
Pages where climate change is mentioned in passing but is not the main focus should be identified under “Tier 3,” according to the spreadsheet.
“For each piece of content, include the title, link, and your recommendation on how the content should be handled,” the email reads.
The USDA has long been involved in climate research and in studying how rising temperatures and shifting weather patterns impact agriculture. The department’s website includes extensive resources on climate science, carbon sequestration, and adaptation strategies for farmers.
A USDA webpage published in 2022 provides information on “Climate Change Adaptation and USDA.”
“Producers, ranchers, forest landowners, and communities across the country are facing challenges posed by the effects of climate change,” the webpage states. “Some of these effects are familiar but occurring more frequently or intensely while others are new and unprecedented.”
The directive to remove mentions of climate change from websites follows President Donald Trump’s executive orders reversing key climate policies, which include withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, expanding fossil fuel production, weakening environmental protections, and revoking EV incentives.
Critics warn these actions will accelerate climate change and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities.
Recently, the USDA made the controversial decision to order the removal of any mentions of climate change from its public websites. This move has sparked outrage among environmental activists and scientists, who argue that ignoring the issue of climate change is a dangerous and irresponsible decision.
By censoring information about climate change, the USDA is hindering efforts to raise awareness about the environmental challenges facing our planet. Climate change is a pressing issue that affects agricultural practices, food security, and overall environmental sustainability. Ignoring the science and evidence behind climate change only serves to impede progress in finding solutions to mitigate its impacts.
It is crucial for government agencies like the USDA to acknowledge and address the reality of climate change, rather than try to sweep it under the rug. By silencing discussions about climate change, the USDA is failing to fulfill its duty to protect the environment and ensure the long-term health and prosperity of our planet.
We must continue to push for transparency and accountability within government agencies to ensure that vital information about climate change is not suppressed or ignored. The fight against climate change requires a united effort from all sectors of society, and we cannot afford to let politics get in the way of taking meaningful action.
On Thursday, the Trump administration ordered the US agriculture department to remove its websites documenting or referencing the climate crisis.
By Friday, the landing pages on the United States Forest Service website for key resources, research and adaptation tools – including those that provide vital context and vulnerability assessments for wildfires – had gone dark, leaving behind an error message or just a single line: “You are not authorized to access this page.”
In a directive issued by the United States Department of Agriculture’s office of communications, officials instructed website managers across the agency to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change”, according to Politico. It also included a Friday deadline to list the mentions in a spreadsheet for further review. As of publication, the USDA’s Climate Hubs – helpful sites that connect producers to local programs and research – are still live.
The move is just one in a dizzying flurry of orders issued in the first two weeks of the Trump administration as it attempts to drastically reshape the federal government and halt key investments made to blunt the effects of global heating.
Trump repealed environmental protections put in place by Joe Biden, declared a misguided energy emergency to hasten already-booming fossil fuel extraction, and withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
The administration also added confusion and chaos within federal agencies by halting hiring and pausing projects, along with issuing a widespread buyout offer that would guarantee federal workers pay and benefits through September 2025 if they resign within the next week.
It is unclear what the agencies will do with the websites or the policies and studies once detailed on them; links to the landing pages are still live, even if the information on each page has been blocked.
But the sites featured important tools and information to help mitigate the effects of climate change and research. For now, the administration has effectively barred access to dozens of programs set up to help a wide range of communities – from farmers to firefighters – as they navigate changing conditions.
The USFS and the Department of Agriculture did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a controversial move, President Trump has ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take down websites that reference the climate crisis. This decision has sparked outrage among environmentalists and scientists who rely on this information for research and policy-making.
The Trump administration has been criticized for its stance on climate change, with many accusing the President of ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. By removing access to vital information on the USDA’s websites, critics argue that the administration is further suppressing efforts to address the growing threat of climate change.
The USDA has yet to comment on the decision, but it is clear that this move will have far-reaching implications for those working to combat climate change. As the debate over the administration’s environmental policies continues, it is more important than ever for individuals to stay informed and advocate for action on this critical issue.
High winds and dry vegetation set the stage for the explosive wildfires in Los Angeles. Scientists are finding that climate change fueled some of the extreme conditions.
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images/AFP
hide caption
toggle caption
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images/AFP
In early January, the stage was set for a wildfire disaster in Los Angeles. A long, hot summer had dried out the plants and vegetation, making it more flammable. Drought conditions dragged on, as winter rains had yet to arrive. Then came powerful Santa Ana winds, gusting above 80 miles per hour.
The result was more than 16,000 homes and buildings were destroyed after the fast-moving Eaton and Palisades fires exploded. In those extreme conditions, firefighters had little hope of getting control of the blazes.
New studies are finding the fingerprints of climate change in these wildfires, which made some of the extreme conditions worse. In particular, the hotter temperatures and a drier atmosphere can be linked to heat-trapping gases that largely come from burning fossil fuels, according to two different analyses from the University of California, Los Angeles, and World Weather Attribution, a collaboration of international scientists.
Still, for other extreme conditions that led to Los Angeles’ fires, like the strong Santa Ana winds and lack of rain, discerning the role of climate change is scientifically trickier.
While there may be a connection to climate change, it’s harder to recognize given the state’s highly variable weather, which normally swings from wet to dry years. The powerful computer models scientists use to analyze climate impacts also struggle with very small geographic areas or complex processes, like wildfire behavior.
Climate scientists are developing ways to pinpoint the role climate change is playing in wildfires. Still, the most significant human influence may be how the wildfires started since there were no lightning storms at the time that would have sparked the fires.
“The ignitions were undoubtedly due to human activity,” says Alex Hall, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA. “So fundamentally, I think these fires are anthropogenic. They are human-created. We have to take the prevention of ignitions a lot more seriously, especially when we know that there’s going to be a very dangerous Santa Ana wind event.”
Thirsty atmosphere
Los Angeles’ summer heat persisted late into the fall last year, including a record-breaking September heat wave. The period from June through December ranked as the third hottest since 1895.
A hotter atmosphere is a thirstier atmosphere. The dry air draws moisture out of plants, making them more susceptible to burning. For small vegetation like grasses, drying only takes hours. For larger things like trees, or even the wood in fences and decks, it can take days or months.
The dryness of Los Angeles’ vegetation before the fires was due to both hotter temperatures and a lack of rain. An analysis by UCLA found that about a quarter of that moisture deficit was due to the extreme heat, which was influenced by climate change.
“The fact that we have a warmer or drier atmosphere today because of global warming very likely causes large fuels like dead logs and fence posts and other materials that you find in urban environments to be drier than they would be otherwise,” says Park Williams, a hydroclimatologist at UCLA. “These fires are very likely more intense and dangerous in urban environments because of global warming.”
Another analysis by World Weather Attribution found that the hot, dry conditions were about 35% more likely because of climate change, as measured by the Fire Weather Index, which looks at temperature, humidity and other weather factors.
Wind and rain
Winds were the biggest factor for the explosive growth of the Los Angeles fires, sending showers of embers into neighborhoods that ignited homes.
“The wind speeds were incredibly, incredibly strong, and we had an incredibly dry fuel,” says John Abatzoglou, professor of climatology at the University of California, Merced. “So realistically, this was a perfect storm when it comes to conditions for fire disasters.”
The Santa Ana winds blow when there’s an area of high pressure over the Southwestern U.S., which pushes air towards Southern California and funnels it through the mountains near Los Angeles. Often, that warms the air and accelerates the wind speeds, leading to dangerous fire conditions. Scientists are working on understanding how the conditions that create these winds could shift as the climate warms, but there still isn’t a clear answer. The conditions could decline or shift in timing.
“Whether or not climate change affected the winds is highly uncertain, very, very complicated,” Williams says.
The impact of climate change on Southern California’s rainfall is another challenging question. California saw a wet winter prior to this one, which caused dense vegetation to build up. That heavy vegetation stayed dry this winter in drought conditions.
“Normally we get our first rains, maybe around November, and that’s what kills off the fire season, but we didn’t have that rain,” Hall says.
Hall says the rainfall deficit this winter in Los Angeles was a 1-in-50-year event, meaning it has a 2% chance of happening in any given year. Still, whether climate change played a role in that is still unknown. Climate scientists use complex computer models to forecast the effects of climate change, but California’s location on the globe makes it difficult to discern what will happen.
“Most of Mexico is projected to dry and Seattle is projected to generally get wetter, and we are right between those two areas,” Williams says. “If our models are off by just a little bit, California could either get drier or wetter. And at the same time, the models do project that precipitation will become more extreme in the future, which would cause the wet years to get wetter and the dry years get drier.”
California’s rainfall is also naturally highly variable, with huge swings between wet and dry conditions from year to year. That makes it harder to pick out a pattern and the oldest rainfall records only go back to the late 1800s.
“That means that we need a much longer record to look at for things like trends in precipitation in order to detect the influence of climate change, just because the natural swings are so large,” Hall says.
Climate scientists are working on refining climate change models to better simulate wildfire conditions at a smaller scale. That could help areas like Los Angeles get a better view into their future.
The devastating Los Angeles fires have shocked the nation, leaving many wondering how climate change played a role in this disaster. As temperatures rise and drought conditions worsen, the risk of wildfires in California has increased dramatically.
Climate change has led to longer and more intense fire seasons, creating the perfect conditions for wildfires to spread quickly and uncontrollably. In Los Angeles, the combination of high temperatures, low humidity, and strong winds fueled the fires, making them difficult to contain.
Additionally, climate change has resulted in the drying out of vegetation, making it more susceptible to ignition. In turn, this has caused fires to burn hotter and faster, destroying homes and habitats in their path.
It is clear that climate change has played a significant role in the Los Angeles fires, highlighting the urgent need for action to address the root causes of this crisis. As we continue to witness the devastating impacts of climate change, it is more important than ever to prioritize environmental conservation and sustainable practices to prevent future disasters.
Tags:
climate change, Los Angeles fires, environmental impact, climate crisis, California wildfires, natural disasters, climate change impact, global warming, Southern California fires, environmental destruction
Shakespeare told of a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
Ignoring that tide can leave someone — or a nation — stranded. President Donald Trump, by drawing a target on the sale of electric vehicles, wants to ignore a tide that can help save the planet from the worst effects of climate change.
He essentially wants America to be left at ebb tide while China and Europe improve their technologies and boost their sales of EVs. More than half of new cars sold in China already are electric or hybrid. American auto manufacturers, including those in Illinois, hope to compete on the world stage, but under Trump’s plan, they could fall far behind.
“U.S. automakers want a chunk of what is the fastest-growing auto market in the world,” Kathy Harris, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s director for clean vehicles, told us. “That is a hard thing if you have the president hobbling their ability to invest.”
Trying to put up a stop sign in front of electric vehicles is just one way Trump is going against the tides. He wants to hollow out the ranks of experienced civil servants and replace them with workers who pass a “loyalty test”; upend immigration policies in a way that could prove chaotic and damaging in unexpected ways; change trade policies, risking the alienation of allies, and — through his and other action — put Americans’ health at risk. Those are just some of his notions that could cause long-term damage.
America last, not first
By doing what he can to get rid of EV tax credits; grants to increase the charging network, and support for manufacturing batteries, Trump is signaling he wants America to sit back while other nations improve their EV technologies. He has ordered a pause in already-funded plans for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Whether he can use a mere executive order to overturn laws enacted by Congress is uncertain. But if he succeeds, it could strand the nation on a back road. If America tries to catch up at a later day, where would the enormous resources to do so come from?
The European Union, by contrast, has just promised to help that continent’s auto industry with subsidies to counter China’s massive investments in EVs. America can’t expect to drive down the road in the opposite direction by gambling on fossil fuels and still win the race.
On his first day in office, Trump also signed anti-climate executive orders to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, try to reverse a ban on drilling on 625 million acres of federal waters, stop the leasing of off-shore wind-energy farms, and other measures. Taken together, along with his attack on EVs, those measures will hurt the climate.
It doesn’t have to be that way. States can step in and amp up their own programs to encourage sales of electric vehicles, and individuals can make a special effort to research whether buying an EV makes sense for them. Electric vehicles without subsidies cost more than their internal combustion counterparts, but they are cheaper to operate and, over the long term, are competitive on cost.
A new report says EVs now last as long as vehicles with internal combustion engines, and EVs are continuously being improved. For example, heat pumps are upgrading EV range in cold weather. Batteries continue to improve.
What those who prefer internal combustion engines don’t always mention is the Earth already is beset by climate disasters of increasing severity. California’s fires are just among the most recent examples. Eighteen of the worst 20 wildfires in California’s history have occurred since 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported. Scientists say climate disasters from hurricanes to drought to heat waves will just keep getting worse if nothing is done.
Trump and his allies are making it clear they don’t want to be at the forefront of the worldwide surge of EVs, but others, from states to auto manufacturers, should try to make that happen. Michigan, for example, is investing more than $27 billion into about 60 EV manufacturing and battery projects in the state, PBS News reported.
Years from now, America should not be looking back on these times wishing it had taken a different fork in the road.
In recent months, President Trump has taken a series of steps that are seen as a blow to the electric vehicle industry and the future of climate action. From rolling back fuel efficiency standards to attempting to revoke California’s ability to set its own emissions standards, Trump’s actions are hindering progress towards a cleaner, more sustainable transportation sector.
The electric vehicle industry has been gaining momentum in recent years, with major automakers investing billions of dollars in developing electric cars and expanding their electric vehicle offerings. However, Trump’s moves to weaken fuel efficiency standards and undermine incentives for electric vehicles are threatening to slow down this progress.
Not only are Trump’s actions harmful to the electric vehicle industry, but they also have serious implications for the future of the planet. Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and transitioning to electric vehicles is a key component of efforts to combat climate change. By obstructing the growth of the electric vehicle industry, Trump is undermining efforts to reduce emissions and limit the impacts of climate change.
It is crucial that we continue to push for policies that support the growth of the electric vehicle industry and encourage the transition to cleaner transportation options. The future of our planet depends on it.
The hot, dry, windy conditions that led to the recent Southern California fires were about 35% more likely because of climate change, a new report says.
The findings come from the World Weather Attribution group, which analyzes the influence of global warming on extreme events.
The fires have killed at least 29 people and destroyed more than 16,000 buildings.
Climate change increased the likelihood of the extreme conditions that allowed the recent fires to roar across the Los Angeles area, an international group of scientists said Tuesday.
The hot, dry and windy conditions that preceded the fires were about 35% more likely because of human-caused global warming, according to a new report from the World Weather Attribution group, which analyzes the influence of global warming on extreme events.
The fires, which started during a ferocious windstorm and after almost no rain had fallen in greater Los Angeles since the spring, have killed at least 29 people and torched more than 16,000 buildings, including homes, stores and schools.
“This was a perfect storm when it comes to conditions for fire disasters — the ingredients in terms of the climate enabling, the weather driving the fires and the huge built environment right downwind from where these ignitions occurred,” John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at the University of California, Merced, who contributed to the report, said at a news conference.
Compared to a preindustrial time before fossil fuels were widely used, there are now 23 extra days of “dry season” on average each year in the Los Angeles region, the report said, making it more likely that fires will coincide with seasonal Santa Ana winds.
Park Williams, a professor of geography at UCLA and an author of the report, said fires during cool seasons in Southern California require four conditions: widespread grass or brush that can burn, abnormally dry conditions, an ignition (which almost always comes from a person; and extreme weather, like the recent windstorm. He described each of those conditions as an individual switch in a system that requires all four to be flipped on for light to emanate.
“The artificial warming due to human-caused climate change is making the light brighter,” Williams said.
The authors of the report analyzed weather and climate models to evaluate how a warmer atmosphere is shifting the likelihood of fire weather (meaning conditions that increase the risk of wildfire). They also tracked how a metric called the Fire Weather Index changed over time. The index tracks temperature, relative humidity and wind speeds, all factors that contribute to the likelihood of fire.
The researchers found that the kind of conditions that drove the L.A. area fires are expected to occur on average once in 17 years in today’s climate. Such conditions would have been expected once every 23 years without climate change and would have been less extreme when they did occur, the report says.
A recent report has found that the conditions that fueled the devastating California wildfires were more likely due to climate change than any other factor. The report, conducted by a team of climate scientists and researchers, highlights the role of rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and increased fuel loads in creating the perfect storm for the unprecedented wildfires that swept through the state.
According to the report, the combination of record-breaking heat waves, dry vegetation, and strong winds created ideal conditions for the rapid spread of wildfires in California. These conditions were exacerbated by climate change, which has been linked to more frequent and severe wildfires in recent years.
The report also notes that climate change is projected to continue worsening wildfire conditions in the future, posing a growing threat to communities and ecosystems across California. As temperatures rise and droughts become more severe, the risk of wildfires is expected to increase, making it imperative for policymakers to take action to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Overall, the report underscores the urgent need for climate action to address the root causes of wildfires in California and protect the state’s residents, wildlife, and natural resources. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, investing in sustainable land management practices, and strengthening wildfire prevention measures, we can help prevent future disasters and build a more resilient future for California.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday confirmed Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a key role to help President Donald Trump fulfill his pledge to roll back major environmental regulations, including those aimed at slowing climate change and encouraging use of electric vehicles.
The vote was 56-42 in Zeldin’s favor. Three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania — supported Zeldin, along with all 53 Republicans.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, is a longtime Trump ally and served on Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment. He voted against certifying Trump’s 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Zeldin, 44, said during his confirmation hearing that he has a moral responsibility to be a good steward of the environment and pledged to support career staff who have dedicated themselves to the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment.
Zeldin repeatedly declined to commit to specific policies, however, promising instead not to prejudge outcomes before arriving at EPA. When asked by Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska whether he would roll back programs that promote electric cars — a program Trump has repeatedly criticized — Zeldin stayed vague but acknowledged he has heard Republican complaints.
Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, has vowed to overturn former President Joe Biden’s biggest climate accomplishments, including tailpipe regulations for vehicles and slashed pollution from power plants fired by coal and natural gas. Trump has already moved to oust career staff at EPA and other agencies, remove scientific advisers and close an office that helps minority communities that disproportionately struggle with polluted air and water.
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island called Zeldin the wrong man for the job.
“We need an EPA administrator who will take climate change seriously, treat the science honestly and stand up where necessary to the political pressure that will be coming from the White House, where we have a president who actually thinks (climate change) is a hoax, and from the huge fossil fuel forces that propelled him into office with enormous amounts of political money and who now think they own the place,” Whitehouse said in a Senate speech.
Trump is “under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry,” Whitehouse said, adding that the EPA administrator “has to be truthful and factual and support and defend our environment and our safety from climate change.’’
He has nothing against Zeldin personally, Whitehouse added, “but the likelihood of him standing against that fossil fuel bulldozer that is coming at him is essentially zero. And in that context, this is very much the wrong guy.”
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Zeldin will return the EPA to its original mission of protecting America’s air, water and land — without “suffocating the economy.”
Barrasso called Zeldin “a lifelong public servant” and a seasoned lawyer with a sharp legal mind and over 20 years of military service.
Zeldin will continue Trump’s “mission to roll back punishing, political regulations” at the EPA, “cut red tape” and oversee “a new wave of creativity and innovation,’’ Barrasso said.
“For the last four years, the so-called experts at the Environmental Protection Agency went on a reckless regulatory rampage,’’ Barrasso said, referring to the Biden administration. “They saddled American families and businesses with higher costs and heavy-handed restrictions. They bowed to climate extremism and ignored common sense.”
Zeldin “will right the ship and restore balance at the EPA,’’ Barrasso said, citing likely actions to repeal Biden-era rules on tailpipe emissions and power plants, along with eliminating federal subsidies for electric vehicles.
The League of Conservation Voters, a national environmental advocacy group, has panned Zeldin’s lifetime environmental record, giving him a 14% score. Like all Republicans at the time, he voted against the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act aimed at boosting renewable energy and manufacturing and fighting climate change.
Zeldin supported a bill to reduce harmful forever chemicals, called PFAS, that would have required the EPA to set limits on substances in drinking water. He also was a leading proponent of the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act, which used oil and gas royalties to help the National Park Service tackle its massive maintenance backlog. He’s also supported local conservation efforts on Long Island.
Zeldin said at his Jan. 16 hearing that he wants to collaborate with the private sector “to promote common-sense, smart regulation that will allow American innovation to continue to lead the world.”
The EPA under his leadership “will prioritize compliance as much as possible,” Zeldin said. “I believe in the rule of law and I want to work with people to ensure they do their part to protect the environment.”
The Senate has confirmed Congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a move that has sparked controversy among environmental advocates. Zeldin, a Republican from New York, has been a vocal critic of climate change regulations and has vowed to roll back environmental protections put in place by the previous administration.
President Trump praised Zeldin’s confirmation, stating that he is confident Zeldin will prioritize economic growth over environmental regulations. The President has also reiterated his commitment to cutting climate rules and expanding domestic energy production.
Environmental groups have expressed concern over Zeldin’s appointment, citing his track record of voting against environmental protections and his ties to the fossil fuel industry. They fear that under Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA will prioritize industry interests over the health and well-being of the American people.
As Zeldin takes the helm at the EPA, the debate over the future of environmental policy in the United States is sure to intensify. Stay tuned for updates on how Zeldin’s leadership will impact the environment and public health.
Next month New Hampshire launches a new law to cut food waste, and in the process eventually save landfill space and reduce the methane gas emissions that drive climate change. Other potential upsides of the Feb. 1 start for the food waste law? New sources of healthy food for pantries and shelters, fertilizer for farms, and jobs transporting, processing and marketing the food that once just got trucked and dumped.
Under the new law, similar to those in neighboring states, facilities that create more than one ton of food waste a week will redirect that waste from landfills and incinerators to alternative management facilities that either recover edible food to feed people and animals, or use composting or anaerobic digestion to process wasted food into useable byproducts. Hospitals, colleges, restaurants, correctional facilities, stadiums, convention centers, large hotels and big box grocery stores are all likely contributors on the ton-a-week-plus side, but no producer of food waste will be required to transport that waste unless a management facility with adequate capacity is within 20 miles.
The law came out of the state’s Solid Waste Working Group headed by Rep. Karen Ebel, D-New London, as a key part of the state goal to reduce disposal of solid waste tonnage by 25 percent by 2030 and 45 percent by 2050. New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) is now seeking proposals for a consultant, to be hired with the approval of the governor and Executive Council, to help determine who exactly is affected by the new law, and begin working out logistics for education, transportation and diversion.
Even a small dent in the amount of food waste dumped in landfills makes a big difference: Food waste makes up about a quarter of the general trash that New Hampshire businesses and homes produce. In 2023, New Hampshire dumped roughly 171,785 tons of food waste, according to estimates from Michael Nork of the NHDES Solid Waste Management Bureau. In Vermont, a similar law has decreased food waste in landfills by 13 percent. In Massachusetts, with the most successful program in the country, one study indicated a 13.2 percent reduction in all landfill waste because of the law, and a 25 percent reduction in methane emissions.
“As New Hampshire develops a network of food waste management facilities within easy reach of the larger producers, we hope not only that landfill space will be saved and methane emissions will be reduced, but that the cost of transporting food waste from producers to management facilities will drop, saving businesses money,” said Nork of NHDES.
New England’s largest grocery store chain is already operating an effective food waste diversion program across all six states. Hannaford no longer takes any food waste from its 183 stores to a landfill – decreasing landfill disposal by 65 million pounds in 2020 alone.
One boost to help food waste generators and management facilities divert food waste from landfill disposal is a $500,000 grant program appropriated by the NH legislature. Grant funds will help with implementation of the law by providing financial assistance to increase infrastructure capacity for those who want to explore transportation operations or create or expand composting and digester sites. Jennifer Mitchell of NHDES, who is managing the implementation and operation of the new law, said money from that grant could be available to help manage food waste by deferring costs associated with compliance of the ban. For example, potential use of the funds could go towards the purchase of a new truck for a food bank that wants to increase mobile food distribution capacity. NHDES will need to develop rules to establish this new grant program, and intends to hold listening sessions over the coming year to help inform that process.
As composting sites and digesters ramp up, and food pantry transportation replaces landfill dumping of good food, food waste producers should see not only a dramatically better outcome for their leftovers, but the potential reduction in costs from the current $100 a ton they pay to simply ‘waste’ food that has far better uses.
To her great credit, Governor Ayotte has made clear her strong opposition to a proposed new mega-landfill in New Hampshire’s north country. This is great news for finally getting New Hampshire off the never-ending treadmill of landfill expansions. The launch of New Hampshire’s new food-waste law will play an essential role in pivoting the Granite State away from its historic focus on waste disposal to a new, more sustainable focus on waste reduction. Our communities, environment, and economy will all benefit.
Tom Irwin is Conservation Law Foundation Vice President for New Hampshire.
Introducing a New Law to Cut Food Waste and Help the Hungry and the Climate
In an effort to address the pressing issues of food waste, hunger, and climate change, lawmakers have recently passed a groundbreaking new law aimed at reducing food waste and redirecting surplus food to those in need.
The new law mandates that food retailers and restaurants must donate their excess edible food to charitable organizations or food banks, rather than throwing it away. This will not only help to alleviate hunger in our communities, but also significantly reduce the environmental impact of wasted food on our planet.
By redirecting surplus food to those in need, we can ensure that no edible food goes to waste and that vulnerable populations have access to nutritious meals. Additionally, this initiative will help to minimize methane emissions from decomposing food in landfills, which are a major contributor to climate change.
This new law represents a significant step forward in the fight against food waste, hunger, and climate change. It is a win-win solution that benefits both our communities and our planet. Let’s all do our part to support this important initiative and make a positive impact on the world around us.
Tags:
food waste reduction, hunger relief, climate change, new legislation, environmental impact, sustainable practices, food donation, community support, government policy, social responsibility
You may have read news reports of life threatening and devastating floods, hurricanes and heatwaves, all driven by human-induced climate change. Perhaps you have heard that 2024 is due to be ruled the warmest on record.
You’ll know that without significant and immediate action, lives are at risk from ever more extreme weather. And you despair at the failure of our leaders to take sufficient action at another underwhelming UN climate summit.
This knowledge can feel overwhelming. You might find it challenging to cope with – perhaps you are losing sleep, or finding yourself mulling over worries for your future. You might have already been directly impacted by the changes to our planet as a result of destructive human action.
You might be unsure what can be done, and feel powerless or angry. At the same time, you might feel isolated, with others around you not seeming to recognise the precariousness of our situation.
As psychologists who research psychological responses to the climate emergency, we’re here to tell you something important: you are not alone.
A global survey of 10,000 people aged 16-25 found that climate worries had impacted on the daily functioning, like sleeping and concentrating, of 45% of respondents. In the UK, 73% of those surveyed felt that the future is frightening, with 48% feeling dismissed or ignored when voicing concerns. Subsequent surveys found similarly high rates of distress.
For some people, the proliferation of terms such as “climate anxiety” can feel validating. However these terms risk seeing an individual’s distress as the problem, rather than reflecting an ability to stay connected to the planetary emergencies we are living through.
A different perspective can be offered by what’s known as the power threat meaning framework, or PTMF, which centres the consideration of context when making sense of distress. Challenging the western tendency to see distress as symptomatic of presumed “mental disorders”, the PTMF encourages a focus on asking, “What has happened to you?” rather than, “What is wrong with you?”
‘What has happened to you’
As part of Georgina’s now-completed doctoral research, we carried out a series of 30 PTMF-informed interviews with eight people who are distressed about the climate crisis. We recruited climate activists, but a lot of their experiences can be applied to us all, activist or non-activist alike.
The framework was useful in highlighting how people experience a range of meanings and emotions in relation to the climate crisis, such as guilt, responsibility, alienation, despair, grief, powerlessness, anger, hopelessness and hopefulness. We regarded all these different responses as understandable in the context of the climate crisis and its dismissal by others in participants’ lives.
Some of the most useful questions related to social power. For instance, participants told us that differences in social standing impacted on their sense of being heard and included when discussing climate change. Similarly, participants’ experiences were shaped by the negative media coverage of climate activism and societal messages that support the dismissal of the urgent issues participants had been trying to draw attention to.
A PTMF lens supported thinking about how the same threat responses can serve different functions for people at different times. For example, participants said they engaged in forms of climate action to protect against overwhelming emotions or feeling powerless, and to protect loved ones.
While some had felt guilty for not doing more, or not thinking about the climate crisis at all times, use of the PTMF helped them understand how withdrawal and distraction had been valuable threat responses which helped them regulate their feelings, enabling them to continue their activism.
Recognising the climate crisis as a collective trauma is also useful in another way. It supports recognition that many who dismiss or ignore activists’ concerns are doing so to protect themselves against facing the often unbearable reality.
Climate distress
Whether it is one person or a group, connecting with other people who share similar concerns is key. It’s important that conversations aren’t only focused on actions we can take, but also include a space to process our feelings and responses with supportive others. Know that you are not alone and there is no correct way to feel.
Making some pro-environmental lifestyle changes can help you to feel less powerless. Taking action can help you to feel as though you have done something meaningful. This can involve anything from starting conversations, sharing petitions, writing to your MP or representative, or coming up with your own ideas for influencing positive change in your community.
Find what connects to you personally. It’s important to take breaks though, and go gently with yourself. Use self-care practises and engage in activities that you find soothing. Be kind to yourself and recognise that some pro-environmental actions will not be available to you, for financial or other reasons.
Recognise that your grief, despair, fear and rage all reflect your care and compassion for what is happening to our planet, and your ability to take any action in spite of this pain reflects strength that should be celebrated and nurtured.
Ultimately, though, the solution to climate distress must be much broader than on the individual level. What our research showed was that climate distress is caused by the (in)actions of governments and powerful bodies which are harming our planet and threatening our futures. Significant systemic changes are needed now to act on the climate crisis to protect humanity and support adaptation as climate breakdown progresses.
The devastating impacts of the climate crisis are not limited to physical destruction and loss of life. The psychological toll of witnessing the destruction of our planet and the suffering of countless individuals and communities is immense.
Anguish, despair, and grief are all valid emotional responses to the climate crisis. It is natural to feel overwhelmed and helpless in the face of such overwhelming challenges. The constant stream of news about wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, and other climate-related disasters can take a heavy toll on our mental health.
It is important to acknowledge and validate these feelings, rather than trying to suppress or ignore them. By allowing ourselves to feel and process these emotions, we can better cope with the reality of the climate crisis and take meaningful action to address it.
If you are struggling with feelings of anguish, despair, or grief related to the climate crisis, know that you are not alone. Reach out to friends, family, or mental health professionals for support. Together, we can work towards a more sustainable and just future for all.
